In re Interest of Artamis G. et al.

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

In re Interest of Artamis G. et al.

Additional Case Names
9:25am
Case Number
A-20-0653
Court Number
Douglas
Call Date
April 7, 2021
Case Time
9:00 AM
Case Summary

A-20-0653, In re Interest of Artamis G. et al.

Separate Juvenile Court for Douglas County, Judge Amy Schuchman

Attorney for Appellant:  Andrea Finegan McChesney (McChesney Family Law Omaha)

Attorney for Appellees:  Mark Hanna (Douglas County Attorney); Anne E. Troia (Anne E. Troia, P.C., L.L.O.); William R. Harris (Barry Law Firm)

Civil Action: Complaint to Intervene; Cross-Appeal: Termination of Parental Rights

Action Taken by Trial Court:  The State filed a motion to terminate Krysta’s parental rights to her six children under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (2), (5), (6), and (7) (Reissue 2016) in  July 2018. Larry filed a complaint to intervene in April 2019, alleging he was the grandfather of the children, thereby holding a right to intervene. A hearing on Larry’s complaint was held in late May 2020. The State filed an amended motion to terminate Krysta’s parental rights under § 43-292(1), (2), (5), (6), and (7) in July 2020. After a three-day hearing, the juvenile court entered an order terminating Krysta’s parental rights to her six children under § 43-292(1), (2), (5), (6), and (7) in August 2020. In the same order, the court denied Larry’s complaint to intervene, stating in part that while Krysta and Larry had “entered into a form of adoption,” there were deficiencies in proof surrounding the legality and validity of the adoption. The court also noted that the rights of grandparents are terminated when the rights of the parents have been terminated.

Assignments of Error on Appeal:   On appeal, Larry assigns that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying his complaint to intervene. On cross-appeal, Krysta assigns that the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(1), (2), (5), (6), and (7) and in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests.

Case Location
Web Conference
Court Type
Separate Juvenile Court
Schedule Code
A1
Panel Text
Moore, Riedmann, and Bishop, Judges